Qantas August 23rd announcements
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour has it that JHAS is in financial trouble and about to go under. It can't be substantiated, but when there is an exodus from JHAS to AMSA, there must be an element of truth in it. I'm not a fan of either organisation, but I would have though JHAS would have been the least bad to work for.
Romuous,
The contractor wears the cost risk, and the airline/company outsourcing wears the "brand" damage risk should something go wrong. If an item purchased fails quickly, or an aircraft has a major accident, it is the reputation of the company/airline that is first damaged. The public won't care at first who did the shoddy maintenance. That will come after it is found that the work wasn't done locally.
Remember QF32 A380 (OQA) that blew No.2 engine over Singapore. That sent the share price into a nose dive, and the airwaves ablaze that a QANTAS aircraft had crashed, especially when you had photos of local Indonesians holding a piece of engine cowling with an intact roo logo. Not QANTAS's fault, but they got hammered for a little while. RR had their reputation damaged and cost them a cool $95million for a faulty oil line. Granted, this was a warranty issue, but when something goes bang inflight, people go running and fingers start pointing.
If risk is to be managed, it is best eliminated or reduced to virtually zero. In house work is not 100% guaranteed, but is much closer to 100% as the people employed to do the job have "ownership" of the job.
There's more to a company than glossy financial statements and blurbs from HQ.
Romuous,
That's one of the benefits of outsourcing, you get a price and you get reduced cost risk, the contractor wears most of the risk.
Remember QF32 A380 (OQA) that blew No.2 engine over Singapore. That sent the share price into a nose dive, and the airwaves ablaze that a QANTAS aircraft had crashed, especially when you had photos of local Indonesians holding a piece of engine cowling with an intact roo logo. Not QANTAS's fault, but they got hammered for a little while. RR had their reputation damaged and cost them a cool $95million for a faulty oil line. Granted, this was a warranty issue, but when something goes bang inflight, people go running and fingers start pointing.
If risk is to be managed, it is best eliminated or reduced to virtually zero. In house work is not 100% guaranteed, but is much closer to 100% as the people employed to do the job have "ownership" of the job.
There's more to a company than glossy financial statements and blurbs from HQ.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by qf94
Rumour has it that JHAS is in financial trouble and about to go under. It can't be substantiated, but when there is an exodus from JHAS to AMSA, there must be an element of truth in it. I'm not a fan of either organisation, but I would have though JHAS would have been the least bad to work for.
Rest of your post - agreed.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love how Virgin is rubbing QF's nose in it. On a number of occasions lately, I have heard them state that they have a 15-20% cost advantage over the incumbent - Gold! The moaning on this issue used to come from the other side but I guess when you have an advantage you might as well exploit it; particularly when the opposition seems limited in their response.
qf94 said
and
Mate, you are absolutely right in what you say but also slightly incorrect. The public did, and still does, see the A380 engine explosion as a "Qantas maintenance failure". What you say about first impressions is absolutely spot on and what is at risk when you outsource the very essence of what you have a reputation for. In QF's case: maintenance excellence.
The general public still hasn't shifted its thinking on who is to blame for QF32. They don't generally name RR as the sole culprit. In fact, most of the general public would be hard pressed to even NAME Rolls Royce as the manufacturer. In their mind still: it was a Qantas failing. That is a failing of QF Public Relations and it was not even a maintenance issue, outsourced or otherwise! It was a manufacturing issue, under warranty.
I continue to hear people say they "will not fly with Qantas because their maintenance standards have slipped" or "because of all the maintenance problems". A number of them, when pressed, will cite QF32 as an example of what they mean. Major PR failure. But then again, OW and her team have been distracted beating up on those nasty employees, I suppose.
The public won't care at first who did the shoddy maintenance. That will come after it is found that the work wasn't done locally.
Not QANTAS's fault, but they got hammered for a little while.
The general public still hasn't shifted its thinking on who is to blame for QF32. They don't generally name RR as the sole culprit. In fact, most of the general public would be hard pressed to even NAME Rolls Royce as the manufacturer. In their mind still: it was a Qantas failing. That is a failing of QF Public Relations and it was not even a maintenance issue, outsourced or otherwise! It was a manufacturing issue, under warranty.
I continue to hear people say they "will not fly with Qantas because their maintenance standards have slipped" or "because of all the maintenance problems". A number of them, when pressed, will cite QF32 as an example of what they mean. Major PR failure. But then again, OW and her team have been distracted beating up on those nasty employees, I suppose.
Last edited by Ushuaia; 28th Aug 2012 at 21:52.
Originally Posted by Ushuaia
Mate, you are absolutely right in what you say but also slightly incorrect. The public did, and still does, see the A380 engine explosion as a "Qantas maintenance failure". What you say about first impressions is absolutely spot on and what is at risk when you outsource the very essence of what you have a reputation for. In QF's case: maintenance excellence.
The general public still hasn't shifted its thinking on who is to blame for QF32. They don't generally name RR as the sole culprit. In fact, most of the general public would be hard pressed to even NAME Rolls Royce as the manufacturer. In their mind still: it was a Qantas failing. That is a failing of QF Public Relations and it was not even a maintenance issue, outsourced or otherwise! It was a manufacturing issue, under warranty.
I continue to hear people say they "will not fly with Qantas because their maintenance standards have slipped" or "because of all the maintenance problems". A number of them, when pressed, will cite QF32 as an example of what they mean. Major PR failure. But then again, OW and her team have been distracted beating up on those nasty employees, I suppose.
The general public still hasn't shifted its thinking on who is to blame for QF32. They don't generally name RR as the sole culprit. In fact, most of the general public would be hard pressed to even NAME Rolls Royce as the manufacturer. In their mind still: it was a Qantas failing. That is a failing of QF Public Relations and it was not even a maintenance issue, outsourced or otherwise! It was a manufacturing issue, under warranty.
I continue to hear people say they "will not fly with Qantas because their maintenance standards have slipped" or "because of all the maintenance problems". A number of them, when pressed, will cite QF32 as an example of what they mean. Major PR failure. But then again, OW and her team have been distracted beating up on those nasty employees, I suppose.
The problems for Qantas will only get worse because the people who got you into this situation cannot, by definition, get you out of it.
They are focussed on cost instead of the value proposition for the customer.
They have the strategic focus of a gnat - witness how China was supposed to save the company and the time and effort spent on that hall of mirrors.
They have no understanding of outsourcing - in particular that the charge rate and total cost of outsourcing will only increase, it looks cheap at the outset, but once you are committed and have abandoned the idea of doing work yourself (by destroying your in house engineering capability) you will be royally screwed.
To put that another way, all the cost benefits of getting down the learning curve on a new aircraft type will go to the contractor, not Qantas.
They have the HR resource capability of Attila the Hun. Airlines are very popular places for would be managers because of the international travel perks. Qantas has failed to guard against the hiring of narcissists in management and the result is always the same: Too many levels of management and a poisonous set of relationships between employees and management.
As Gough Whitlam allegedly said: "Being made a Director of Qantas is the Australian equivalent of becoming a member of the House of Lords". The strategic capability of the Board - picking the A380, not picking the B777 and of course the APA bid demonstrate a less than stellar understanding of the role their lordships were required to fill.
All problems stem from these simple issues.
They are focussed on cost instead of the value proposition for the customer.
They have the strategic focus of a gnat - witness how China was supposed to save the company and the time and effort spent on that hall of mirrors.
They have no understanding of outsourcing - in particular that the charge rate and total cost of outsourcing will only increase, it looks cheap at the outset, but once you are committed and have abandoned the idea of doing work yourself (by destroying your in house engineering capability) you will be royally screwed.
To put that another way, all the cost benefits of getting down the learning curve on a new aircraft type will go to the contractor, not Qantas.
They have the HR resource capability of Attila the Hun. Airlines are very popular places for would be managers because of the international travel perks. Qantas has failed to guard against the hiring of narcissists in management and the result is always the same: Too many levels of management and a poisonous set of relationships between employees and management.
As Gough Whitlam allegedly said: "Being made a Director of Qantas is the Australian equivalent of becoming a member of the House of Lords". The strategic capability of the Board - picking the A380, not picking the B777 and of course the APA bid demonstrate a less than stellar understanding of the role their lordships were required to fill.
All problems stem from these simple issues.
Last edited by Sunfish; 28th Aug 2012 at 22:41.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good work!!
The last few posts in this thread really hits the nail on the head in regard to many of the QF issues, excellent work gents.
QF94
And Ushuaia;
And
And this is the major problem.Stone faced incompetent bulls#itartist PR chumps who do not know or understand how to salvage a product during a time of crisis, with the Dugon incident being a perfect example. PR can or will break an airline, and the QF spin machine are doing just that - contributing to the trashing. The public want to know that planes are safe, and they want that assurance at all costs. But QF prefer to trash Engineers reputations, paint a picture of them being an 'unnecessary evil' to be disposed of, culled and outsourced at all costs. Not a smart way to do business.
Team Joyce need to pull their heads out of the spreadsheets and start smelling the Avgas.
And this comment from Sunfish sums up the situation succinctly. Alan, print this off and place it above your fu#king desk;
QF94
The contractor wears the cost risk, and the airline/company outsourcing wears the "brand" damage risk should something go wrong. If an item purchased fails quickly, or an aircraft has a major accident, it is the reputation of the company/airline that is first damaged. The public won't care at first who did the shoddy maintenance. That will come after it is found that the work wasn't done locally.
Mate, you are absolutely right in what you say but also slightly incorrect. The public did, and still does, see the A380 engine explosion as a "Qantas maintenance failure". What you say about first impressions is absolutely spot on and what is at risk when you outsource the very essence of what you have a reputation for. In QF's case: maintenance excellence.
The general public still hasn't shifted its thinking on who is to blame for QF32. They don't generally name RR as the sole culprit. In fact, most of the general public would be hard pressed to even NAME Rolls Royce as the manufacturer. In their mind still: it was a Qantas failing. That is a failing of QF Public Relations and it was not even a maintenance issue, outsourced or otherwise! It was a manufacturing issue, under warranty
The general public still hasn't shifted its thinking on who is to blame for QF32. They don't generally name RR as the sole culprit. In fact, most of the general public would be hard pressed to even NAME Rolls Royce as the manufacturer. In their mind still: it was a Qantas failing. That is a failing of QF Public Relations and it was not even a maintenance issue, outsourced or otherwise! It was a manufacturing issue, under warranty
I continue to hear people say they "will not fly with Qantas because their maintenance standards have slipped" or "because of all the maintenance problems". A number of them, when pressed, will cite QF32 as an example of what they mean. Major PR failure. But then again, OW and her team have been distracted beating up on those nasty employees, I suppose.
Team Joyce need to pull their heads out of the spreadsheets and start smelling the Avgas.
And this comment from Sunfish sums up the situation succinctly. Alan, print this off and place it above your fu#king desk;
As Gough Whitlam allegedly said: "Being made a Director of Qantas is the Australian equivalent of becoming a member of the House of Lords". The strategic capability of the Board - picking the A380, not picking the B777 and of course the APA bid demonstrate a less than stellar understanding of the role their lordships were required to fill.
Last edited by gobbledock; 28th Aug 2012 at 23:05.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: timbuktoo
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have the HR resource capability of Attila the Hun
They have the HR resource capability of Attila the Hun how very true, They are now trying to rip off the last 10 engineers from the redundancy by refusing to pay out the 12 weeks in lue of notice, they never lean,
Quote:
As Gough Whitlam allegedly said: "Being made a Director of Qantas is the Australian equivalent of becoming a member of the House of Lords". The strategic capability of the Board - picking the A380, not picking the B777 and of course the APA bid demonstrate a less than stellar understanding of the role their lordships were required to fill.
As Gough Whitlam allegedly said: "Being made a Director of Qantas is the Australian equivalent of becoming a member of the House of Lords". The strategic capability of the Board - picking the A380, not picking the B777 and of course the APA bid demonstrate a less than stellar understanding of the role their lordships were required to fill.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate, you are absolutely right in what you say but also slightly incorrect. The public did, and still does, see the A380 engine explosion as a "Qantas maintenance failure".
People will remember the engine explosion, and then the gallant effort of all the flight crew in landing the aircraft that had more problems that even Airbus couldn't envisage. Maybe there's a message in there that high level of flight crew training saved the aircraft and those on board. Hmmmmm, QF management could be on to something there. But then again, I guess they still believe all the pilots and QANTAS employees in general are "overpaid" as slated by AJ and the investors.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: herethereandeverywhere
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it be fair to deduce that with the grounding costs of $95...sorry what day is it, $195 million, plus the $300 million for the restructure that a loss of $244 mil is really a profit of $250 mil without the negative efforts of AJ and co? That's not bad at all. How are we losing money again?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it be fair to deduce that with the grounding costs of $95...sorry what day is it, $195 million, plus the $300 million for the restructure that a loss of $244 mil is really a profit of $250 mil without the negative efforts of AJ and co? That's not bad at all. How are we losing money again?
As far as AJ and Co are concerned, everything that is good is bad, and everything that is bad is International.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget also that this sort of organisational structure is a way of a CEO attempting to blame others when it turns to dust or the reported message turns out to be something other than what was stated. Even better if the incumbents leave in the meantime.
Whilst it is dressed up as a profit driver, it is usually anything but that and forms a smoke and mirrors charade.
Whilst it is dressed up as a profit driver, it is usually anything but that and forms a smoke and mirrors charade.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many contributors to this thread are right about the many problems that Qantas faces, but the reality is that Alan Joyce and the board don't read these posts and don't care what is said if they did.
They have the high ground on managing the business whether we like it or not and it's only the major shareholders that can change that.
I wonder what THEY would think of think of these posts.
If anyone has something to contribute on that, it might be interesting.
They have the high ground on managing the business whether we like it or not and it's only the major shareholders that can change that.
I wonder what THEY would think of think of these posts.
If anyone has something to contribute on that, it might be interesting.
